Silly boy...

Well, that's ok then...

So, only 120,000 sites were dishing malware and not 5,000,000? I fail to see how that make things any better. 0 malware serving sites would be more appropriate.

I don't believe I'm out of line when I say we should expect more from the company that runs .com and .net. Unfortunately, as previous posters point out, and my own history with the company shows, this is simply par for the course.

So what's the list?

If you can say there are 40,000 or 70,000 or 100,000 compromised websites, certainly it's possible to produce the list? Sure would be nice to use for a local blacklist or better yet, to see if one of my customer's websites is on the list.

But I guess scaring people with big numbers to get them to buy your products is more important than actually protecting the Internet at large.

Intentional delay?

Make no mistake, the delays in filling these positions are manufactured (as are the qualifications for those who are appointed). The goal is to allow a large infrastructure attack as the pretext for increasing our surveillance society. You think the Patriot Act was bad, just wait until they unveil the TCP/IP Act (Take Control of Packets/Internet Pwnage Act).

Chuckwagon

Shut up

@abigsmurf: are you dumb or just ignorant? read TFA. Even if legal drugs are taxed at 200% they'll still be 90% cheaper than they are under prohibition. Ok I paraphrase, but reality is closer to my hyperbole than yours.

Besides, legalize cannaibs and I'll grow my own. No cost to you or me or society. And Dow Chemical and f-off.

Mine's the one multicolored Nehru jacket with the giant spliff in the pocket.

when I say "never" I mean "never".

@AC:

Outside the natural (and man made) events that affect ALL networks, I really did mean "never" about my ethernet packet loss. And I know this *because* of the extensive monitoring I have in place. Testing is just obvious if you want to make the claims that I do.

I realize you know a lot of things and that makes you feel all grown up, but I've been building award-winning, lossless ethernets for nearly 10 years and I can back it up. Why don't you come on over some time and I'll teach you a thing or two.

Hrmm...doesn't add up

"The trade-off is that Ethernet has a longer latency than FC and can lose packets causing a retransmission, meaning even more latency."

then two paragraphs later you say about FC over Ethernet:

"FCoE meant you could enjoy FC speed - using 10gig Ethernet - and predictable latency with no packet loss."

So how does FCoE magically avoid the "longer latency" and "lose packets" problems that iSCSI has over the same Ethernet? Is it the magic of 10Gig? If so, then why not run iSCSI over 10Gig for the same benefits? Trying to compare apples and oranges to make FCoE look better, are we? FYI, a single 10Gig ethernet card with TOE will ALWAYS be cheaper than a bunch of 10Gig Ethernet cards with CNA (with or without TOE). Benefit iSCSI.

(FCOE == ATM) = 1

Who else remembers how ATM was going to take over the desktop? There was going to be ATM in every switch, every closet, every enterprise. Was it fast and reliable? Yes! So what happened? A plucky little contender called Ethernet came along (thick-net/ vampire taps/BNC-style) and although it wasn't nearly as reliable or as fast as ATM it was way cheaper and more importantly, it was "good enough".

10-GigE is here and 40-GigE is just around the corner (and 100-GigE not far behind). iSCSI over these speeds may not be as feature complete as FCoE on the same pipe, but it *will* be cheaper and it *will* be "good enough" for all but the most demanding enterprises (or those with the "well, we've already spent so much on this we might as well keep doing it that way").

SAN guys take heed, learn ethernet or lose. FCoE is a last gap for a dwindling market. Why Cisco is hitching up to that train I have no idea.